Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

Ironic
Thousands of words written in discussion, and no-one read the article sufficiently carefully to realise that the blurb was inaccurate, because the lead was inaccurate? It was Library Journal, not Choice, that described the book as a sincere analysis of the word and its history of censorship, according to the body of the article. Mind you, the mistake in the lead existed during the article's review at FAC, which is also worrying. BencherliteTalk 14:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the fix. Most appreciated. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In looking back at the FAC it was my mistake, my sincere apologies. I saw a comment from someone recommending to put the bit from Library Journal in the lede, and I mistakenly attributed it to Choice when I moved it there on 11 March 2014, diff. Once again, sorry about that. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)